I came across this sordid tale and hesitated to present it. It’s disturbing without question. It riles me as little else can. There has been calls for the death penalty for people like the scum in the story. I can’t say that I don’t agree with that sentiment.

That such monsters exist in our world is not the issue. It is not the issue either that this particular monster is a homosexual. What is the issue is the fact that the media didn’t see fit to cover this story as they did an earlier rape case referred to in the link, and likely familiar to everyone not living in a shack in the woods.

How can this be? How can such a horror not compel every news agency to report this? Is the mainstream media so in the bag for the homosexual movement that even stories as horrifying as this one won’t be worthy of headlines?

Obviously this is so. I recall Rush Limbaugh once reporting on a homosexual rape by a member of the Navy that was never covered. And are we to assume that all those pedophile priests that are used to besmirch the Catholic Church are simply heteros who couldn’t find little girls to abuse? Sure. If you believe that, I’ve got some magic beans I’m willing to sell ya.

Who cares what “orientation” a perpetrator is where the victims are kids? But why hide it? Unlike some, including some who visit here, I’m not willing to assume only the best about anyone, any more than I’m willing to assume the worst. Isn’t the former every bit as judgemental as the latter? This is certainly the manner in which the media should be doing its investigations and reporting.

Does it mean anything that this scumbag is a homosexual? Who knows? It seems to matter when a lawbreaker is right wing or Evangelical. Perhaps, however, if the media wouldn’t pretend it doesn’t matter (as if they have the brains to know one way or the other), we might find out. Or we may find out about something we’d wish we’d have known a long time ago, for good or ill. But the point is that just like the media refuses to report when the latest shooter is a Muslim, they also refuse to report when a perpetrator is a homoseuxal. One can only surmise that the sad reality is that their support for the homosexual movement, and I think it’s a fair suspicion that most of the media supports them, compels them to hide this little detail. Shameful.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

More fire for Dan's pretend straw:From http://www.leaderu.org/jhs/dallas.html — ======Religious Argument #1:"Jesus Said Nothing About Homosexuality."This argument is a favorite at gay parades. Invariably, when the "gay Christian" movement is represented, someone in their group will hold up a sign saying, "WHAT JESUS SAID ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY: ________________." The idea, of course, is that if Jesus did not specifically forbid a behavior, then the behavior must not have been important to Him. Stretching the point further, this argument assumes if Jesus was not manifestly concerned about something, we should not be, either.[Rev.] Troy Perry [The founder of the Metropolitan Community Churches — all gay, all the time], (as most gay Christian leaders do) makes much of this argument based on silence:As for the question, 'What did Jesus say about homosexuality?", the answer is simple. Jesus said nothing. Not one thing. Nothing! Jesus was more interested in love.[67]So, according to the argument of silence, if Jesus did not talk about it, neither should we.====We could come up with example after example. Of course Blog Stalker Dan won't be swayed by this. He'll just think that by saying "straw man #X" that people will think, "Gee, Mark, Neil and the rest keep pointing out facts about people using the "silence" argument to imply that Jesus didn't care about homosexuality or that it is OK. But gosh, Dan keeps calling it a straw man. He must be right."Uh, probably not.Prediction: 10 more fluffy comments from Blog Stalker Dan to try and bury the facts. It is his style.

"Feodor has behaved in an obnoxious way, but no one else?" Dan. Are you going to join in the same game with Feodor? As I said, Feodor has been a jerk from the moment he first made himself known to us. The first time wasn't here. I don't recall where I first noticed him, but each of us on this side of the aisle have all said the same about him. I personally know of no one who started blogging with an attitude and personality as annoying and insulting as his (except for a few really troublesome trolls who just think saying crap on peoples' blogs is a fun time). As I've said, I have no problem with snark. I have no problem with someone cracking wise. Generally, a history is developed before the typical visitor takes such liberties. (Unless one is truly clever—a huge gamble if one is not careful) But Feodor has been an arrogant, condescending and insulting jerk from day one. You have shown less patience on your own blog for any rightwingers who crack wise. I let people expose themselves and he has exposed himself as a jerk. It's just that simple.

Neil said…Prediction: 10 more fluffy comments from Blog Stalker Dan to try and bury the facts. It is his style.How about just one more? Reasonable people got the point a long time ago and, unfortunately, you and your associates are either incapable of understanding the English language and basic logic or you're just twisted.Straw man arguments: EIGHTEENRed Herrings: SEVEN-EIGHTAd Hominem attacks: TWENTY-FIVE or soActual evidence: STILL ZEROha, you fellas just so KWAAAZY. Lord, help us all.

Daffy had snark, not a comment, and that you can't acknowledge that is due to your dishonorable practice, demonstrating your dishonorable practice of faith.And why does it seem that whenever Neil gets smudged, you get all flagrant?Like Alan, I sense a little homo-eroticism here.

Neil, with all due respect, I have to agree with Dan on this one.See, you and I were addressing the argument from silence only as it pertains to homosexuality. Dan was addressing it as it pertains to all things Jesus didn't say. Of course, Dan often used the old argument from silence to defend his acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle many times before we broached the subject, but when you added the words, "Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant", you inadvertently gave Dan a straw to grasp at so he could accuse us of painting all abhorrent behavior with a broad brush. When, in fact, that wasn't your point and Dan knows that. Nevertheless, Dan chose to ignore the rest of your point to focus his debating tactics on the first part of your three part point, "In the Bible, Jesus did not specifically condemn abortion or homosexual behavior.- Therefore, abortion and homosexual behavior are morally permissible or unimportant."So, in that sense Dan is correct that no one argues that whatever Jesus didn't specifically condemn is morally permissible and unimportant.However, Dan completely ignored the fact that we were specifically talking about homosexuality and the homosexual apologists use of the argument from silence, and instead, focused on your unfortunate misstatement.So, to return this discussion onto the right track, let me rephrase Neil's point:In the Bible, Jesus did not specifically condemn abortion or homosexual behavior.- Therefore, abortion and homosexual behavior are morally permissible or unimportant.(Continued)

That, Dan, is the argument from silence Neil and I were talking about. I agree that no one (to our knowledge)has ever made the argument from silence to justify ALL sinful behavior.But, they have indeed made use of the argument from silence to support their claims that God blesses homosexuality. I'm sure, since you have used that argument yourself on several occasions, that you will agree with me on that point.OK? Now that we have that straightened out, let me ask you this question:Dan, besides the fact that Jesus never said one word about homosexuality, do you have any other Biblical evidence that supports your claim that God blesses Same sex marriage? And if so, cite book, chapter and verse, so that we homophobes may be as enlightened as you. You know, something that doesn't constitute a logical fallacy?All this is a moot point, of course, unless you believe that God and Jesus are two separate entities, and that the Bible was 1. mistaken,2. wrong,3. lying, or4. all of the aboveWhen it says "all scripture is God breathed", and "I and My Father are One".Which means, simply, that Jesus, in His manifestation as God, wrote all of the Bible, therefore, when God said, "You shall not lie with mankind as you lie with a woman. it is an abomination," Jesus in fact, was the One that wrote that particular law.Or more simply put: God is Jesus. Jesus is God. Therefore, whatever God said, Jesus said.But, Dan, ignore those two biblical facts (which I know you already do)and just answer the question.

Here is another Biblical fact that has no doubt escaped Dan:God is Love, but Love is not God.Try to wrap your mind around that, Dan!It is my contention, so far non refuted, that Homosexuals make a God of their perversion, thus, when they hear or repeat the phrase,"God is Love", they misconstrue it to mean, in their twisted minds, "Love is God".But the two terms are not interchangeable.With that in mind, it is easy to see how they might come to believe God blesses their perversion.But they are wrong. And so is Dan.

Marshall, I continue to have limited opportunities to comment for the time being, but I remain interested in discussing any issue with Dan Trabue in a fair forum, here, at Craig's, or elsewhere.(Obviously Craig as more important things to focus on right now.)If I don't respond to a comment quickly enough, you have my email address.Now, Dan:So far as I can tell, you haven't written ONE WORD in response to my most recent substantial comments to you.You claim to be concerned about "unsupportable allegations," and I reminded you of your own thus-far unsubstantiated allegations about me. You suggest that Neil and others are "probably" wrong for treating others' arguments as goofy, when you have done precisely the same.You asked for "something fresh and direct to ask or say," and I reminded you that there are several threads that you continue to ignore — such as my point regarding "compulsory charity", which is most relevant to the subject at hand, and which I rephrased in response to your more recent arguments.And I noted that your observation that the Bible is silent on "gay marriage" is question-begging, because it presumes that the Bible is unclear about what marriage is.It seems you're more eager to keep childish and unsubstantiated tallies of our supposed offenses, than you are to actually respond to substance THAT YOU REQUESTED.It seems that you're more interested in focusing on Neil's comment, than you are to responding to substance you requested. You now appear to be using that comment as some sort of proof that some of your opponents are "unable to successfully process simple sentences," with a likely goal of invoking this comment of Neil's as some sort of hurdle to ascertain the moral reasoning skills of everyone else — JUST as you did with a comment of Mark's, not too many threads back.I'll ask again: is there a significant difference between the ARGUMENTS, between your argument for "gay marriage" and mine for "compulsory charity"? If not, would you have anything persuasive to say to rebut the argument for the latter, or must you conclude that "compulsory charity" is actually a behavior about which reasonable Christians can disagree?An answer would be appreciated, sooner rather than later.

Dan, I'll continue the discussion in Craig's thread, here, as I have time.For the moment I'll note that I've already addressed the response that you now reiterate."The only thing you wrote in reply — before claiming, implausibly, that you just can't multitask — is that 'compulsory charity' isn't voluntary and 'gay marriage' is."That's true, but it's wholly beside the point. The two different activities aren't identical; if they were, I wouldn't be able to make the point I'm trying to make."It's not that the behaviors are identical, but that the arguments for them are very nearly identical. I deliberately crafted my argument parallel to yours. If your argumentation can be used to justify behavior as absurd as 'compulsory charity,' your approach is fundamentally flawed." [emphasis added]You act as if I never made this point the first time around.You now write:"You DO make the point that it is fairly easy to argue just about anything using the Bible, even arguing points that aren't in the Bible (such as gay marriage or compulsory charity)."But that's not the point I'm making.I'm not simply saying that it's easy to argue just about anything using the Bible; I'm saying it's easy to argue just about anything USING YOUR QUESTION-BEGGING APPROACH TO THE BIBLE. The problem isn't that the Bible's unclear — it's not — but rather that your approach is flawed.If YOUR APPROACH can be used to prove anything from the Bible, then YOUR APPROACH isn't trustworthy.

FWIW, this is actually probably not the best timing for our dialogue to begin at earnest at Craig's, in part because I've had to reformat my hard drive at home, and because I have family over.I **WILL** respond to that thread as soon as I can, but that may take 'til this time next week.I do appreciate everyone's patience in the meantime.

MA, Bubba, Dan,Great Idea. I'll be back at it nest week. A personal comment, The last two days have been an amazing tribute to an amazing man. I will not soon forget all of the wonderful words, stories etc. Christian community is such an amazing thing. Seeing it at it's best should be enough to convince anyone that something out of the ordinary is happening. Thanks again for your condolences.